the newbury boycott.

​As anyone who has visited this site down the long, weary years, will be aware, I like Newbury racecourse, believing it to be the fairest and best flat and jumps course in the country, with nowhere near enough Group 1’s and Grade1’s in comparison to other so-called Group 1 racecourses. What they have done in allowing sensitive housing to be built on land sold to developers is a lesson to be learned by many other racecourses here and around the world. Yet sadly I have to side with those trainers who withdraw all thirteen runners from a race at Newbury due to be run on Saturday July 16th.
Of course, Newbury are none too pleased at being subjected to what in effect is a vote of no confidence and the Racecourse Association (R.C.A. – just to go down a blind alley for a moment, what does the C stand for in R.C.A. If they spell the word racecourse as one word, as is traditional, not as 2 words or with a hyphen, the C is affectation to the point of perplexity? Hardly gives an observer much confidence in them being efficient at representing their members, does it?) is ‘extremely disappointed’. Mad as hell, I should think, might be closer to the truth.
The R.C.A., no, I can’t be doing with that errant and unnecessary C – The Racecourse Association believe such petulant behaviour by the dissident trainers will throw a spanner into the complex workings of its ‘critical talks’ about the future of British racing’s governance. Along with the Thoroughbred Group, the Racecourse Association are attempting to out-muscle the B.H.A. into doing what they want it to do, which is to selfishly increase their profit-margins, at the expense of what is good for the long-term future of the sport. Needless to say, being feeble, the B.H.A. are favourite to capitulate and give the Racecourse Association 90% of what they are demanding and then suggest the 10% left on the negotiating table represents a great result for the sport.
The salient point is ignored, of course, by the troublesome – my opinion – Racecourse Association, that Newbury is known as a Group 1 racecourse and as such it should not be outshone by ‘lesser’ racecourses when it comes to prize money. A race with a value of £5,300 on a Saturday card with terrestrial t.v. coverage is a kick in the teeth to owners, trainers, jockeys and stable staff. Newbury deserves better in terms of major races; in terms of importance neither the Lockinge nor the Challow Hurdle are races keenly awaited each season, and horse racing in this country deserves better when it comes to rewarding the owners and trainers that for decades have shown loyalty to Newbury racecourse.
Although when it came to Rishi Sunak collective responsibility went out the window, Jacob Rees-Mogg cited collective responsibility for his reason/excuse for not criticising Boris Johnson personally for Partygate or any of his failed political policies. And collective responsibility should be the clarion call from all of British racing’s stakeholders.
The one aspect of this which does a taste a little sour in the mouth is if trainers, to make a point, can get together to boycott a race on the grounds of ‘not good enough for a Group 1 track on a Saturday afternoon’, Roger Varian’s words, not mine, then why don’t they also take unilateral action and boycott 300 other races during the course of the season in order to flag up the blindly obvious problem of too much racing in this country?
The problems horse racing is suffering at the moment are not being dealt with in any meaningful or proactive way by the B.H.A., Racecourse Association or the Thoroughbred Group, so why doesn’t the Trainers’ Federation grab the bull by the horns and improve field sizes by the only logical method open to them? Choose 300 races and boycott them. Somebody has to sort our problems out, why not owners and trainers?